ArticleJournal of biomedical science2013
CoDP: predicting the impact of unclassified genetic variants in MSH6 by the combination of different properties of the protein.
Article in Journal of biomedical science, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variant Impact Predictor database (VIPdb), version 2: trends from three decades of genetic variant impact predictors.Human genomics · 2024Article
- Variant Impact Predictor database (VIPdb), version 2: Trends from 25 years of genetic variant impact predictors.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- A loss-of-function variant in ZCWPW1 causes human male infertility with sperm head defect and high DNA fragmentation.Reproductive health · 2024Article
- Characterization of the Genomic and Immunologic Diversity of Malignant Brain Tumors through Multisector Analysis.Cancer discovery · 2022Article
- Computational approaches for predicting variant impact: An overview from resources, principles to applications.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
- Computational study of the impact of nucleotide variations on highly conserved proteins: In the case of actin.Biophysics and physicobiology · 2022Article
- VIPdb, a genetic Variant Impact Predictor Database.Human mutation · 2019Article
- Must Peutz-Jeghers syndrome patients have theWorld journal of clinical cases · 2018Article
- Article
- Functional analysis of rare variants in mismatch repair proteins augments results from computation-based predictive methods.Cancer biology & therapy · 2017Article
- Suspected Lynch syndrome associated MSH6 variants: A functional assay to determine their pathogenicity.PLoS genetics · 2017Article
- Article
- Creating A Course Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) Genetics Yeast Laboratory Course at Xavier University of Louisiana.Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLynch syndrome is a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome caused by a mutation in one of the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes. About 24% of the mutations identified in Lynch syndrome are missense substitutions and the frequency of missense variants in MSH6 is the highest amongst these MMR genes. Because of this high frequency, the genetic testing was not effectively used in MSH6 so far. We, therefore, developed CoDP (Combination of the Different Properties), a bioinformatics tool to predict the impact of missense variants in MSH6.
methodsWe integrated the prediction results of three methods, namely MAPP, PolyPhen-2 and SIFT. Two other structural properties, namely solvent accessibility and the change in the number of heavy atoms of amino acids in the MSH6 protein, were further combined explicitly. MSH6 germline missense variants classified by their associated clinical and molecular data were used to fit the parameters for the logistic regression model and to assess the prediction. The performance of CoDP was compared with those of other conventional tools, namely MAPP, SIFT, PolyPhen-2 and PON-MMR.
resultsA total of 294 germline missense variants were collected from the variant databases and literature. Of them, 34 variants were available for the parameter training and the prediction performance test. We integrated the prediction results of MAPP, PolyPhen-2 and SIFT, and two other structural properties, namely solvent accessibility and the change in the number of heavy atoms of amino acids in the MSH6 protein, were further combined explicitly. Variants data classified by their associated clinical and molecular data were used to fit the parameters for the logistic regression model and to assess the prediction. The values of the positive predictive value (PPV), the negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the tools were compared on the whole data set. PPV of CoDP was 93.3% (14/15), NPV was 94.7% (18/19), specificity was 94.7% (18/19), sensitivity was 93.3% (14/15) and accuracy was 94.1% (32/34). Area under the curve of CoDP was 0.954, that of MAPP for MSH6 was 0.919, of SIFT was 0.864 and of PolyPhen-2 HumVar was 0.819. The power to distinguish between pathogenic and non-pathogenic variants of these methods was tested by Wilcoxon rank sum test (p < 8.9 × 10(-6) for CoDP, p < 3.3 × 10(-5) for MAPP, p < 3.1 × 10(-4) for SIFT and p < 1.2 × 10(-3) for PolyPhen-2 HumVar), and CoDP was shown to outperform other conventional methods.
conclusionIn this paper, we provide a human curated data set for MSH6 missense variants, and CoDP, the prediction tool, which achieved better accuracy for predicting the impact of missense variants in MSH6 than any other known tools. CoDP is available at http://cib.cf.ocha.ac.jp/CoDP/.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.